I've been covering the business of news, information and entertainment in one form or another for more than 10 years. In February 2014, I moved to San Francisco to cover the tech beat. My primary focus is social media and digital media, but I'm interested in other aspects, including but not limited to the sharing economy, lifehacking, fitness & sports tech and the evolving culture of the Bay Area. In past incarnations I've worked at AOL, Conde Nast Portfolio, Radar and WWD. Circle me on Google+, follow me on Twitter or send me tips or ideas at jbercovici@forbes.com.

Cat Marnell, Buzz Bissinger And The Ethics Of Publishing An Addict

First, “Friday Night Lights” author Buzz Bissinger used the pages of GQ to tell the world about his addictions to shopping and kinky sex. Then, drug-abusing beauty blogger Cat Marnell signed a deal with Simon & Schuster — for a reported $500,000 — to write a memoir of her ongoing self-destruction project. The title: “How To Murder Your Life.”

The parallels only go so deep. Bissinger is a 58-year-old thrice-married father of three, Marnell a 30-year-old free agent. Bissinger’s confessional essay was an abrupt departure from his usual oeuvre as a noted sports commentator; self-exposure is Marnell’s metier. Bissinger, who says he takes prescription drugs for “mild” bipolar disorder, was already being treated for addiction at the time of his writing and has since entered an inpatient program, while Marnell has characterized her addiction as a lifestyle choice, saying she’s “not really planning on getting better” (although her repeated trips to rehab suggest otherwise).

Still, both cases raise some of the same unsettling questions. Is there something exploitative about handing a megaphone and a fat wad of cash to someone who suffers from pathological impulsivity? Is it a form of enabling? Is there a line beyond which a writer’s need to share the darkest details of his or her existence deserves to be viewed as a symptom? And what, if any, are a publisher’s responsibilities when faced with a writer who has crossed over that line?

The editors of both writers defend their decisions to publish. “We had and have absolutely no ethical issues whatsoever with publishing the piece,” says GQ senior editor Mark Lotto. “Buzz came to us with the idea to write his story, and we had countless discussions with him during the editorial process. We would never betray his trust by sharing the content of those conversations, but suffice it to say they were thorough and searching and completely open.”

Sarah Knight, the editor who bought Marnell’s book for Simon & Schuster, acknowledges that “there are a lot of layers” to consider” and “I’m not totally sure where the line can be drawn,” but insists that there’s nothing problematic in the deal. “I think if somebody can put together a book proposal and can write 40 terrific pages, she’s obviously in control of her behavior,” Knight says. “I don’t really think it’s for me to judge whether Cat is or should be allowed to write a book because of circumstances in her past.”

Reached by email, Marnell seconded this, after a fashion. “Nobody exploits other people better than a drug addict,” she said. (An email to Bissinger received an auto-reply saying he is “on assignment and unavailable” for the next four weeks.)

Other publishers saw it the same way, says Marnell’s agent, Byrd Leavell. “We actually had more money on the table from another house, but chose to go with S&S because Sarah Knight made such an excellent case for why they should be the publisher, and she the editor,” he says. “There is no ‘exploitation’ to be had here. Just a very talented author getting the advance that the market determined that her book was worth.”

Buzz Bissinger. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

That’s not surprising, says Kelly McBride, who teaches media ethics at the Poynter Institute for journalism. “There are different frameworks for making moral choices, and within the business world that framework is pretty clearly confined,” she says. “When you give someone a lot of money to talk about his or her addiction, yes, it’s exploitative, but so much of our entertainment is exploitative right now.

“We live in a society that has clearly said we’re totally OK with exploitation for entertainment purposes,” McBride added. “You can look at anything from NCAA athletes to ‘Honey Boo Boo’ to Cat Marnell. You pretty much have to be developmentally disabled or incapacitated in some other way for us as a society to consider you unable to make those decisions.”

While Knight says it’s “not out of the question that at some point in my life I might urge an author or a colleague to seek treatment,” she hasn’t raised the subject with Marnell. Nor does she think of her author as someone who needs to be protected from herself.

“Writers overshare as par for the course,” she says. “I do think writers like this are providing a service to the culture at large by being willing to step over that line. Their function is to say things that no one else is saying.”

——————–

Disclosure: I have written an article for GQ and have pitched one or two others over the years. I also have experience with bipolar disorder in people close to me that no doubt has influenced my views here to a large degree.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Jeff, this article raises some interesting points. I’m wondering why these specific instances raised these concerns with you in the light of what seems like an entire cultural movement of exploiting people who can’t control their impulses or at least don’t seem to know any better.

I’m wondering if the education of the person involved is an issue. I didn’t realize this about myself until thinking about your article, but it feels different when someone who seems intelligent (such as Buzz) overshares and when some complete moron from a reality tv show does.

Do you think it’s more exploitive when the person (in our view) should know better? Is it less exploitive if the person seems like a complete dope?

“I think if somebody can put together a book proposal and can write 40 terrific pages, she’s obviously in control of her behavior,” Knight says. Well, thanks, Doctor Editor! Considering I could probably find several precocious kindergartners who could do the same thing, it’s an astonishingly low standard by which to evaluate someone’s capacity to function as a healthy, contributing, non-destructive adult member of society.

Yes, there is a serious ethical issue here. It is always wrong for one human being (or institution) to enable the self-destruction of another human being. I don’t care how Bissinger’s editors rationalize this to themselves so they can sleep at night, but accepting and publishing this piece–knowing what it would do to Bissinger’s career–was wrong.

It’s different when someone’s career is *based* on inappropriate self-disclosure, but that is not the case with Bissinger. His credibility as a serious journalist has been destroyed, and it seems clear from the content of his piece that had he had appropriate treatment and guidance he might not have gone down this path of professional self-destruction.

Editors are the gatekeepers and the mediators between writers and the public. Bissinger deserved better from his editors at GQ.